ReviewIndian heart journal
Primary prevention of sudden cardiac death - Challenge the guidelines.
Review in Indian heart journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Should young athletes be screened for cardiomyopathies to reduce the burden of sudden cardiac death in athletes?Biophysical reviews · 2023Article
- Sudden Cardiac Death in Young Individuals: A Current Review of Evaluation, Screening and Prevention.Journal of clinical medicine research · 2023Review
- [Worldwide experience with automated external defibrillators: What have we achieved? What else can we expect?].Herzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Primary Prevention of Sudden Cardiac death in post-infarction patients especially those with ejection fraction less than 35% is best achieved by implantable defibrillator. However, the cost of Quality Adjusted Life Years saved is $ 50,000-70,000, makes implantable defibrillators not an easily acceptable option when preventing SCD in a significant number of patients with low ejection fraction of 35 percent. In, addition excessive dependence on ejection fraction, excludes a large number of postinfarction patients with ejection fraction more than 35 percent, or patients with existing but not known heart disease. The two complementary strategies based on Public Health approach and Home AED approach and strengthening the program of Bystander CPR and AED application of publically available AED may be a better way for Primary Prevention of SCD in more number of patients. These approaches may be considered seriously to reduce sudden cardiac death in India, however, it needs to be proven.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.